Reference no: EM132106736

The legal proceedings to remove Mrs. Schiavo’s PEG tube originated in the Florida courts, the question then being one which Florida law provided the standard for determination. In 2003, after the PEG tube was removed pursuant to a Florida state court order, Governor Jeb Bush (President George W. Bush’s brother) and the Florida legislature intervened in the dispute, and a quickly enacted Florida statute (called “Terri’s Law”) allowed Governor Bush to issue a stay of the PEG tube removal. Accordingly, Governor Bush, on October 21, 2003 ordered reinsertion of the PEG tube.. Ultimately Terri’s Law was held by the Florida Supreme Court to violate the Florida Constitution (September 23, 2004). On March 18, 2005 after a long series of complex legal maneuvers, Mrs. Schiavo’s PEG tube was removed pursuant to a Florida court order entered on February 25, 2005. Meanwhile, the United States Congress became interested in the dispute and, on March 21, 2005, passed “An Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo." President Bush immediately signed the bill into law. It gave the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida “jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit filed by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain life.” Thus, despite the extensive history of decisions in the Florida courts, a federal district court ion Florida was given authority to decide the dispute anew. To say the least, this was an extraordinary expansion of federal court authority. As you will see, that federal court, on March 22, 2005, denied a motion for temporary restraining order which would have required the reinstitution of life – sustaining measures. Additional attempts to obtain federal court nullification of the Florida court order allowing the removal of the PEG tube and of the federal district court order denying a temporary restraining order failed. Mrs. Schiavo died on March 31 2005. Most of the information in the preceding paragraphs was taken from the University of Miami website. This website provides an excellent summary of the events of this most unusual case, and you should print it out so that you can more easily follow its complex course. The timelines contain very helpful links to other materials, and you should feel free to use any link you wish. For the specific purposes of this course, however, the only links which you are required to use are: February 11, 2000 – “Trial Court Ruling” September 23, 2004 – “Supreme Court Ruling” March 22, 2005 – Federal Court Order” You should print out these court decisions in order to study them more easily. The first of the three decisions (February 11, 2000) contains a factual conclusion that Mrs. Schiavo, in a persistent vegetative state at the time of the decision, did not wish to be kept alive artificially and that she would, choose to have the PEG tube removed . This conclusion was based on statements she had made while competent. This ruling was affirmed by a Florida appellate court (timeline 1, January 21, 2001); the Florida Supreme Court declined to review the case (timeline 1, April 18, 2001). The second decision is the Florida Supreme Court’s decision holding Terri’s Law to violate the Florida Constitution. Note the history of the dispute to that point as set forth in the opinion, as well as the court’s reasoning in declaring Terri’s Law unconstitutional. The third decision sets forth the federal district judge’s reasons for denying a temporary restraining order. The judge indicates (p. 4) his awareness that Congress wanted yet another trial of the case (a “de novo determination …notwithstanding any prior State court determination.” The new (de novo) trial would, by the terms of the federal statute allowing this case to be brough in a federal court, necessarily have had to deal with alleged deprivations of Mrs. Schiavo’s rights under the United States Constitution or under other federal law. The judge found no such deprivations. Clearly, he thought that the Florida courts had protected Mrs. Schiavo’s “life and liberty interests” (i. e., federally protected interests) (p. 10; see also pp.5 – 10). What in your opinion was the single most important factor used by the Florida courts in ruling the Mrs. Schiavo's PEG tube could lawfully be removed? Explain.